Talk:Iran–Contra affair/Archive 1

Inappropriate
1. This can't be part of any 'cold war' business. 2. The 'hostage taking' section right at the top works like a smoke screen. It's not relevant. What is relevant is the Iran Contras affair. Someone is trying to diffuse matters.

Reagan TV appearance
...in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television... Anybody know the exact day? It says nov. 13 was a week later. Also, if we could find transcripts or videos to link to, then we could put links to 'em. Ojcit 00:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Haynes Johnson's book Sleepwalking Through History the exact date of his address was November 6th, 1986. To expand, this address coincided with two events, the Republicans losing controle of the Senate (11/4/86 was election day) and Al-Shiraa's article hitting the wire services. Bellfazar 02:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures
I'm sure there are many pictures relating to the scandal, because the case was in the public spotlight. I read somewhere that the US helped the contras construct an airfield in nicaragua. Maybe someone could find coordinates, then an aerial or satellite image of the field. Xpanzion 18:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hostages
What happened to the hostages? Were they all released because of the arms trade, if not when were they released and what happened to them? As far as I can see the article does not cover this yet.Xpanzion 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Documentation-Ollie North's testimony
I am having trouble finding a copy of Ollie North's testimony before Congress (as depicted in the magazine cover on the page) online. Who wants to hunt with it along with other documentation of the congressional investigation? --65.11.42.23 04:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ari Ben-Menashe
Why is there no mention of Ari Ben-Menashe's Profits of War, a book dedicated to this subject? I think that the article in Consortium News by Jack Colhoun should be here. http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/101499a.html Ben Menashe claimed that the Bud McFarlane/Oliver North connection to Perez and Iran was a distraction and that the bulk of the 80 billion dollar sale of arms to Iran was made by Bush snr and Shamir through himself, to Hashemi Rafsanjani. He prints letters telexes and other documents from the latter to himself on the back page of the book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xpanzion (talk • contribs) 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Clarification
The first 2 sections of this article explain what happend in this conflict, but only in terms of who and how. It doesn't actually explain what was illegal about their actions. Especially when the Boland Ammendment, which according to my understanding prohibited the US from funding the contras, only was effective from December 1983 to September 1985. Yet what Ollie North didn't enter the picture until january of 1986 and Regan's secret presidental "finding" didn't occur until December 1985. So my question is: Under US law, what did those involved do wrong?

I LOVE that last sentence where it says, "In other words, liberals failed to secure their beloved communist Sandinistas." haha I LOVE THAT! Its soo true! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xpanzion (talk • contribs) 17:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Can someone answer these questions?
I'd love to know the following, because it is important to this article:


 * 1) How would the sale of arms to Iran influence Lebanese hostage takers?  I can see there was a relationship between Hezbollah and Iran, but I don't see how that relationship would guaruntee a release of hostage takers.  Keep in mind that Iran had no authority over the Lebanese.
 * 2) Did Reagan authorize the sale of arms to Iran and the funding of the Contras?  If he did, how did he do so unknowingly?  We know that he did not know, but presumably he authorized these actions, because the members of his administration apparently don't have the power to just act on their own.  Reagan maintained he did not know of the sale of arms, so how did these members initate the sales without his express approval?  This could happen if he signed papers without reading what he was signing, but that seems unlikely.
 * 3) What was the underlying purpose of the sale of arms to Iran?  Was it to get back hostages, or was it to fund the Contras?  There must have been one purpose that outweighed the other.  In other words, what was the primary purpose?  According to an article I was reading, it was really about fighting Communism in Central America.
 * 4) For exactly how long was this going on?  When did the sale of arms begin and when did it end?  The article does not state this.  The article says a plan was proposed in January of '86, but when did that plan go in effect?  The article says "From May to November 1986, there were additional shipments of miscellaneous weapons and parts," but when did the original shipments begin?
 * 5) The article states that the sale of arms continued after the last hostage was released.  Why would the sale of arms continue after the release of the last hostages?  Was this a simple error on behalf of someone, or was it intended?  The article says "The arms sale to Iran began before the first United States hostage was taken, and ended a long time after the last hostage was released."  What I don't understand is why the arm sale began before there were any hostages.  This does not add up.  It doesn't make sense.  If the sale of arms had nothing to do with hostages, one may assume it had everything to do with supporting the Contras.  If only purpose was to support the Contras, why didn't the U.S. make money in some other way to fund them instead of receiving money from Iran?

I feel these questions must be answered for the good of the article. If you can answer these questions, please add them here, or add them to the article to further clarify the matter Stiles 23:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The report of Special Counsel has most of the answers.


 * How do the arms sales influence release of hostages? As far as I can tell, we only got Weir back for weapons. But the intent was to moderate the tone of policy toward Iran, hoping to check Soviet influence: Casey pushed for adoption of the SNIE as a National Security Decision Directive (NSDD), an operational paper for the national security community. In June 1985, the NSC staff prepared for McFarlane a draft NSDD responding to the ideas contained in the SNIE. The proposed presidential memorandum, entitled ``U.S. Policy Toward Iran,"recommended that the initial focus of any new policy should be on stimulating essential trade. According to the draft NSDD, the United States should: [e]ncourage Western allies and friends to help Iran meet its import requirements so as to reduce the attractiveness of Soviet assistance and trade offers, while demonstrating the value of correct relations with the West. This includes provision of selected military equipment as determined on a case-by-case basis.36


 * Reagan explicitly told North to keep the Contras going "body and soul." His approval of covert sources of funding was implicit in the administration's end-run around Boland when it sunsetted. This is in Walsh.


 * The sales to Iran have a two-fold purpose, but from what i can tell, funding the Contras is number one. Walsh begins his summary with the Contra side of the story, for instance.


 * How long? Efforts to seek illicit funding for the Contras began soon after the first Boland Amendment was passed in December 1983. Macfarlane had planned to find funds from third-party countries in February 1984, and by May 1984 Saudi Arabia was giving the Contras $1 million a month. Boland ended on October 17, 1986, and Congress appropriated funds for the Contras, making covert funding unnecessary.


 * Sales after release of hostages? This is only partly a mistake. Arms sales were not tit-for-tat. Casey thought of them as part of an ongoing make-nice-with-Tehran campaign. Oh, and once the first hostages were released, others were taken. Walsh again: American Frank Reed was taken hostage in Beirut on September 9, 1986. The next day, Poindexter told North to pursue the Second Channel and avoid Ghorbanifar if possible. Two days later, on September 12, 1986, Joseph Cicippio was taken hostage in Beirut. Thus, after a full year of working with Ghorbanifar on the Iran arms sales, and after repeated shipments of TOWs, HAWKs and HAWK spare parts, the score seemed to be two hostages released (Weir and Jenco) and two new hostages taken (Reed and Cicippio). 


 * Hope this helps, and obviously I think we should get more of Walsh into this article. The Report of Special Counsel took six years -- it's worth referring to. Davidstaniunas 20:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

First arms sale
We need more specificity here. It talks about the Israeli government and US government as if they're single players, but if there's evidence it was individuals or organizations within those governments, it'd be nice to say so. Ojcit 01:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You have a very strong point. In matters like this governments are hardly monolithic.--Atavi 09:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional/alternative background
While I am certainly no expert on the Iran-Contra Affair, I came across some additional and largely alternative "background" for the affair in Noam Chomsky's book, What Uncle Sam Really Wants. You can read the relevant section online (entirely legally) at http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-2-08.html. The gist is that:

(1) The shipment of arms to Iran from the U.S. via Israel began just after the fall of the Shah in 1979 and was public knowledge by 1982 ("you could read it on the front page of the New York Times"). Thus the supply of arms to Iran was underway long before the hostage incident or the supposed request to Peres in 1985.

(2) In 1982, the "main Israeli figures" involved in the arms flow offered as its motivation, in a BBC appearance: "to establish links with elements of the military in Iran who might overthrow the regime, restoring the arrangements that prevailed under the Shah" (in Chomsky's words). This is completely different than the supposed motivation of freeing hostages (who had not even been taken yet!), but is (following Chomsky's research) consistent with the pattern of U.S. military support over the previous decades in South/Central America and Southeast Asia, for example.

(3) The illegal CIA operations with the Contras were already publicly known in 1985, a year before the "scandal" broke.

(4) What was new in 1986 was the connection between these two illegal military funding projects, both of which were designed to undermine governments not in line with U.S. interests (whether they be democratic in Nicaragua or totalitarian in Iran).

Hopefully someone more involved with this topic can assimilate these facts into the "background" section. I am hesitant to do so because I can't see how to do it without trashing the existing background material. Chomsky lists his documentary sources in the book, the entirety of which is available online at http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-contents.html. The sources are listed at http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-notes.html.

R.W.


 * It's a very interesting text. It's good that you found it. Since the source and his supporting arguementation are quite reliable and the facts are substantially different from what the article says at the moment, they should be incorporated into the text. I will look into what I can do myself. I hope others will be interested as well.--Atavi 15:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If we can get additional sources for all these points, so much the better. Chomsky has certainly done a great deal of writing on the subject, but it might be a stretch to call him neutral.  I'm actually reading two of his newer books now.  His criticism section is the longest I've seen on WP (I'm a long way from forming an opinion on how much of that is deserved).  The "sources" section describes speeches, articles, and interveiws given by Chomsky himself, not sources of research for the book (it also says he changed the sources later in the course of the compilation).  Also, I'm not sure "background" is the right framework for what you're describing. These are events that allegedly happened concurrently with the actions in the article; a background would be more like the Cold War, situation in latin america, drug trade, etc, all of which can be introduced via links to relevant articles. Ojcit 05:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that Chomsky is not "neutral." But in my opinion he is reliable. In addition, much of his argumentation is based on dates and news pieces, which can easily be verified. E.g. He mentions the NYT quite often.
 * About the title. "Background" was the original title of the section before I edited it. I didn't think long about whether it is the correct title. Maybe you have a point and of course I'm open to any suggestions either in talk either directly editing the page.
 * Anyway, I will look into potential changes myself.
 * --Atavi 08:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The original author of that section seems to me to be trying to simplify to a degree greater than current uncertainty warrants. Regardless of its veracity, it breaks the flow of the text. It introduces the counterclaim prior to the claim it repudiates, as if to preemptively shed doubt on the text that follows.  The Background section heading may be appropriate if we just (re)move the first "disclaimer" paragraph. Ojcit 18:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I believe that the section as a whole has seen a great number of editors, the disclaimer paragraph to which you take exception is entirely my own. Obviously I think it belongs somewhere in the article or I wouldn't have written it. About moving it, I have no serious objection, as long as a place can be found for it. The information about the Israeli ambassador and the dates are not mentioned elsewhere.
 * To the extent that the paragraph has any specific purpose, to shed doubt on subsequent claims about hostages, is one. The reason is quite simple: the argumentation by Chomsky is completely convincing to me, so the whole hostage story is doubtful and should only be mentioned as such.
 * I don't have any particular objection to the paragraph following rather than preceding the hostages text.
 * Let me say that simplification was not intended. It is a complicated issue, and one whose truth may not become known. To treat any assertion as a possibility rather than fact is necessary, when it has arisen that the truth has been concealed on several occasions.
 * A final note is that I fail to see how text flow is broken. The paragraph follows the introduction, and precedes the detailed account of the events. It summarizes all the aspects of the affair as will be described in detail later.
 * --Atavi 19:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

inline comments
''!-- There should be an explanation on why arms were sold to Iran before hostage taking began, and why it continued after the last hostage was released. Not explaining this would only confuse people, since to most people, it seems the arms were sold in the first place all for the release of hostages. Continuing the sale of arms after the release of hostages implies the arms sale had nothing to do with the hostages --''

Please leave comments on the discussion page, as they can be more easily discussed concurrently with the editing process. Ojcit 02:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Cocaine
Should there be any mention of the Dark Alliances/Gary Webb contra cocaine connection?

-G

Yes there should.... I'm amazed that it wasn't even brought up in passing. I understand that in the US it is still controversial and considered a "conspiracy theory," but it is (or should be) very much a part of the discussion everywhere else in the world. -AC

Why is it not even mentioned? -km


 * no it should not be mentioned. while it is relevant to the Contras, it is not relevant to Iran-Contra (and the latter took place in the late '80s, the cocaine scandal only came out in the mid-'90s.) btw, good job with the identical sig styles. J. Parker Stone 01:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The allegations of drug trafficking had been around since 1986. It was only in 1996 that they stuck. And the CIA report into the Webb allegations specifically mentions Oliver North's knowledge of contra drug trafficking - I've put in three paragraphs on the subject.. -- Aim Here 03:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletions
Please note that if you see a statement saying "this unsigned comment was added by xpanzion" it wasn't actually me who said it. I am trying to organize the discussion page, therefore, I have cut and pasted many threads.

Removing irrelevant information
I removed the paragraph about the Nicaraguan economy, which belongs in articles such as History of Nicaragua and Sandinista National Liberation Front but is not directly related to the Iran-Contra Affair. Similarly, the ICJ ruling came out of opposition to the U.S. funding the Contras at all, and the issues it concerned (such as the CIA mining of the Nicaraguan harbor in '84) occurred before the Iran-Contra Affair. J. Parker Stone 9 July 2005 06:45 (UTC) take this: "The Lebanese magazine Ash-Shiraa exposed the arrangement on 3 November 1986." this was only the first sign of the agreement. compare that to: "On June 27, 1986, the International Court of Justice (or World Court) ruled in favor of Nicaragua in the case of Nicaragua v. United States." The ICJ made the ruling before Iran-Contra was even known -- it related to the Contras, yes, but it was not related to the Iran-Contra scandal. J. Parker Stone 04:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see you moving material, I see you deleting material. For example, you removed this: "The devastation of Hurricane Joan in 1988, called by then-US Ambassador to Honduras John Negroponte "a contra victory," was another serious blow." (and a lot of other material) &mdash; Davenbelle July 9, 2005 06:49 (UTC)
 * i said removed, not moved. Contra successes belong in the Contras, History of Nicaragua, and Sandinista National Liberation Front articles, but they do not directly relate to Iran-Contra.


 * on a side note it seems you RVed back in anti-Sandinista POV on the FSLN article, telling me you're more interested in RV-on-sight then accuracy. J. Parker Stone 9 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)

I think the current version is more concise and accurate (at least on the Contra section, which has been the focus) -- it details the relevant info without delving into tangents about the Contras, the Sandinistas, or what have you. I'd appreciate it if the users watching this article would post here before reverting the current version. J. Parker Stone 04:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Deleted material regarding Reagan, etc.
I deleted the following material in relation to the release of hostages from Iran:


 * This timely return of American hostages is a reflection of Reagan's promised hard-line stance towards the United States' percieved [sic] enemies, in stark contrast to outgoing President Jimmy Carter's stance of peaceful negotiation and limited use of military force (arguably a residual policy left in the wake of the failed Vietnam War, but a policy which proved disatrous [sic] in the failed Operation Eagle Claw rescue attmept [sic]).

While I don't strongly disagree with this commentary, the problem is that it is just that: commentary lacking a neutral point of view. It also lacks sourcing and thus is unverifiable for purposes of Wikipedia. Whether the timely return of the hostages is a reflection of Reagan's promised hard-line stance is an opinion, not a fact.

Maybe someone can find an example of where a secondary source made comments like this. In such case, something similar could be included in the article -- but only as an example of someone's commentary, with proper sourcing, and not as statements of fact. Yours, Famspear 19:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Objections?
Unless there are objections I want to delete two clauses from this article. One notes that, El Salvador "(...was run by a US-backed right wing military dictatorship)." The second states that the contras were "led by former members of the National Guard of the overthrown Somoza regime (1936-1979)." The first assertion can be refuted by this wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Napoleon_Duarte The article notes that the government of El Salvador, in 1986, was led by Jose Napoleon Duarte, a leader who was elected in part because he did not have ties to military death squads. The second clause is a great generalization, as noted in this wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra This article notes that Eden Pastora's contra group, among others, was not affiliated with the Somoza regime.

The previous version was lefty?!?!? I thought it was right-wing. The entire article approaches the affair from a US-centric point of view. For the rest of the world the main issue was not which American politician said this or that but the murder and terrorism caused by America's unlawful assault on a defenceless third world country. That seems to be the major fact of the incident -- where is the death toll for example? David Byron

Well, the scandal was a US scandal, so it would have to be a somewhat US-centric article by definition. But otherwise, I agree with you that it is important to note that the US supported a terrorist group (the contras) against a democratic government in Nicaragua.

The Iran-Contra Affair is the US-centric incident as encompassed by the Congressional inquiry.

There probably should be a separate entry on the total US involvement in Nicaragua, which would cover the death toll, etc.

--TheCunctator - -- Ed Poor
 * 1) I don't agree that the contras were terrorists -- at least not compared with the Sandinistas. What are your sources?
 * 2) Free elections and the appearance of free elections are different.
 * 3) I absolutely refuse to engage in an editing war over this. Any of my changes which get reverted, I shall assume you have good reason.

The Contras were specifically trained by the CIA, and engaged in terrorist actions, including killing civilians, targeting infrastructural elements (power stations, etc.), and assassinating political and military figures.

If we're going to go around calling people terrorists, then they were terrorists.

One of the presaging scandals to the Iran-Contra Affair was the discovery of CIA guerrilla tactics and assassination manuals in Contra possession.

I don't know how much the Sandinistas engaged in the same actions when they were a guerrilla force, but the Contras at least were definitely a pretty brutal bunch.

The Sandinistas were definitely not perfect, and it's an open question how repressive or militaristic they would have been if the US hadn't been supporting the contra forces. Other than right-wing US elements, it seems pretty much everyone thought they were doing a good job.

But that doesn't mean they were--maybe they were as bad as Reagan claimed. But I suspect their main crime was to receive lots of support from the Soviet Union. I think your edits have been useful and, as long as you don't consider this a war, I hope you'll still contribute.

A useful but unabashedly pro-Sandinista reference, and an engrossing tale in any right, is The Death of Ben Linder.

--TheCunctator

Currently the article is about as biased as an article on September 11th that somehow manages to talk about the Palestinians and Osama's point of view but never gets round to mentioning anyone was ever killed! The US backed terrorism is (I think?) unique in provoking the international court to declare America's actions an unlawful use of force, that their 'humanitarian aid' was not humanitarian at all and ruling that the US had to cease any military action or support of military action and pay reparations to Nicaragua. Instead the US increased the slaughter in one of the best documented and most incredibly barbaric acts of terrorism of last century which all countries except Israel opposed the US over.

Ed what basis do you have for calling the Sandanistas terrorists? David Byron

David, I think your comments here are very one-sided. When you say things like "the international court", you're presenting a very skewed picture of how nations interact. There is no "the" international court. The rules of the courts in question specifically permit nations to completely opt out of their judgments -- and that's what usually happens! The judges of the court were and are from such bastions of democracy and freedom as China and Cuba -- their judgment is seriously in doubt in these and all related matters.

Notice that I didn't say one word of defense here of U.S. actions in Nicaragua. That's a totally separate matter from the question of whether a fair encyclopedia article ought to be writt in the manner that you would have us write it!

Should the court decision be covered here? Yes! Absolutely! And in a NPOV way. Words like 'slaughter' and 'terrorism' should probably be avoided completely unless we sufficiently distance ourselves from them. Instead of saying "Instead, the US increased the slaughter..." We should say... well, I'll leave the NPOV version as an exercise for the reader. :-)

--Jimbo Wales


 * I've given up on expecting any NPOV from the articles here, and once again I have refused to update the article because of comments like yours. You've even deleted my /Talk comments before this.  Despite this I believe Ed is more likely to reconsider his position than most here, so I thought it was worth commenting on the extreme bias of the article.


 * Jimbo, you said "There is no "the" international court. The rules of the courts in question specifically permit nations to completely opt out of their judgments -- and that's what usually happens!". He is talking about the International Court of Justice, and the International Court of Justice is an international court, if not the international court. Secondly, no international court permits nations to "completely opt out of their judgements". Once the state has agreed to accept the Court's jurisdiction, it is bound under international law to accept and implement the Court's judgements. The United States voluntarily accepted the ICJ's jursidiction by lodging a declaration of acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction, and by becoming party to treaties that provided for the ICJ to have jurisdiction over the treaty. The ICJ found that it had jurisdiction, it found that the US had violated international law (see Nicaragua v. United States) and the US was therefore obligated to obey its judgement. Furthermore, yes, since the Court represents all the nations in the world, it includes judges from some dictatorships. But it also includes judges from democracies -- and some of the judges from democracies found against the US as well. Furthermore, the judges are independent -- they are not permitted to take instructions from their government. -- SJK

I don't honestly find labelling the Contras terrorists more helpful than calling them freedom fighters. I don't want to get into a mutual overwriting game any more than Ed, but I too would be intrigued to see why he thinks the Sandinistas were more terroristic than their enemies. I've done my best to be neutral in my latest edit. But please let's leave "terrorists" and "freedom fighters" out of this. David Parker


 * I disagree. With terrorism so much in use as a word, and this case is so open and shut. Has there ever been a better documented case?  No international court ever ruled on the IRA or Hamas or whatever.  If you cannot use the word "terrorist" here then you'd have to remove the word from all the references to September 11th too.  This was an incredibly bloodthirsty horrific set of events that went on and on.  The US government's 'opinion' as one of the combatants is surely biased and every other country in the UN general assembly but Israel opposed their 'opinion'.

Also, I just created a page on the International Court of Justice case you referred to: Nicaragua v. United States -- SJK
 * Maybe it should be a sub-page? I don't think the page needs the "US point of view" to be NPOV.  That would be to suggest the court itself was biased.  I don't think anyone is suggesting that.  If they are then that's a whole nother kettle of fish entirely.  If there was a US POV on that page you'd need a balancing anti-US POV in addition to the court's findings.


 * Well, maybe not--for one thing, the entire U.S. response should be presented on the case, meaning the U.S. reasoning for why the court didn't have jurisdiction. The purpose of the page, presumably, is to explain the facts of this important case, including its political and historical significance, on the views of prominent observers.  Its purpose is not to show how the U.S. was wrong, even if some people would like to use the page to do that.


 * But, beyond that, I'd certainly agree that the official U.S. point of view on its involvement in Nicaragua should be explained elsewhere. --LMS

Jimbo, by just about any accounting, the actions of the contras brand them as terrorists. They were really, really awful. BTW, some of this discussion is already covered in the doublespeak entry. I'll probably work on the guerrilla entry--I have some good research on that I could plug in.--TheCunctator

This is disgusting. Obviously, some people don't brand them as terrorists, and obviously, some people do. It is not our job to tell them who's right on this. It's our job to present the controversy fairly. This means that we should be concerned about presenting the pro-Contra view, even if it is repugnant to us. If you (personally, whoever you are) can't, or if you think you can't (which I would interpret as meaning that you're just unwilling--certainly you're all smart enough), then please don't work on the article!


 * What if no one can present the alternative view, but people still insist that alternative view is correct? This is what happened on the Feminism page and I concluded I simply couldn't continue to add text to the page until someone turned up who was willing and able to add a counter POV.  A lot of people hold a lot of beliefs that they cannot substantiate but are still passionate about.  What if there is no pro-Contra view here beyond simply stating they are not terrorists? David Byron

I find this sort of debate strange. Why are we engaged in a debate over this? Why? I don't see what particular paragraphs in the article are affected. If you can see that, then why don't you just change them?

I have a formula that I should probably add to the new neutral point of view article: if you think there's something wrong with some paragraph, from a neutrality point of view, and you think someone's going to disagree with you about that, then (1) make the changes you think are necessary, (2) quote the paragraph on the talk page, (3) explain how it is that your changes made the paragraph more fully unbiased--not more "correct" in the sense of representing your view, but more fully unbiased. I think in most cases, if we were to get into this habit, there won't be much left for people to argue about on talk pages (as long as people are thinking clearly).


 * That's fine in theory. In practise what happens is someone calls you a "vandal" and uses rollback to eliminate all the changes without bothering with further justification.  (I assume this is only true on contentious issues where you edit to represent the minority view).  Again this is where theory meets trouble in practise.  David Byron

I have to say I am bothered a fair bit by those who constantly attempt to represent their own views on politically charged topics, and they seem not to care at all about whether other points of view are represented fairly. Yes, that is your job. If you don't commit yourself to doing that, Wikipedia will be much, much weaker for it. I think that's already the case, actually, and I think it should stop. I think we should all be engaged in explaining each other's points of view as sympathetically as possible! --LMS
 * reply here

From bottom of the article:


 * ''There's more to add here, particularly on the political impact of the scandal on Reagan's presidency. It won't do simply to say "it was damaging"; it's obviously more complicated than that.

The moral heart (or controversy) of the Iran-Contra Affair was that President Reagan's Administration was caught funding terrorists. This antiseptic article does little to describe this dynamic. I added a little to ameliorate the article.

Reagan's Administration built roads, docks, airfields, and communications relays in the Honduras from which to supply and direct the Contras. They provided the communications and equipment the Contras used. They provided pilots and the planes for the Contras to use and intelligence on the Nicaraguan army. The CIA coordinated with the Contras constantly, advising, training, and directing them. The CIA printed, published, and distributed a handbook on guerrilla warfare called "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare."

The Contras tortured and murdered noncombatants of all genders and ages, targeted doctors and teachers for assassination, and waged a general campaign of terror for a decade against the democratically-elected government of a third-world country that had already spent most of the last century under the heel of U.S.-backed dictator. Some of this information might be relevent in this article.

I also took out some truly dubious material: "The Tower Commission was believed to have done more in its ten-week effort than the Congressional report on the Iran-Contra Affair," among other sentences. Who thinks that, the members of the Tower Commission? I think the Tower Commission was not as hard on the president as the congressional investigation, and I am not alone. How honest of an investigation of the president are you going to get when he appoints his own investigator? MarkB

Unexplained deletions of text
Going in history, I see that all this part has been removed:

"In July 1985 the Israeli government approached the Reagan administration with a proposal to get hostages held by Hezbollah released. +  -   +  - The Israelis wanted the United States to act as an intermediary by shipping 508 American-made TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran in exchange for the release of the Rev. Benjamin Weir, an American hostage being held by Hezbollah, a militant Shi'a organization. This was done with the understanding that the United States would then ship replacement missiles to Israel. Robert McFarlane, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, approached Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and arranged the details. The transfer took place over the next two months. The first American hostage was released in mid-September. +  -   + - In November 1985, there was another round of negotiations, where the Israelis proposed to ship Iran 500 HAWK surface-to-air missiles in exchange for the release of all remaining American hostages being held in Lebanon. Major General Colin Powell, senior military assistant to Weinberger, attempted to procure the missiles, but realized that the deal would require Congressional notification as its overall value exceeded $14 million. McFarlane responded to Powell that the President had decided to conduct the sale anyway. Israel sent an initial shipment of 18 missiles to Iran in late November, 1985, but the Iranians didn't approve of the missiles, and further shipments were halted. Negotiations continued with the Israelis and Iranians over the next few months. + -   +  - In December 1985, President Reagan signed a secret presidential "finding" describing the deal as "arms-for-hostages." + -   +  - In January of 1986, the administration approved a plan proposed by McFarlane employee Michael Ledeen, whereby an intermediary, rather than Israel, would sell arms to Iran in exchange for the release of the hostages, with proceeds made available to the Contras. At first, the Iranians had refused the weapons from Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian intermediary, when both Oliver North and Ghorbanifar created a 370% markup (WALSH, Lawrence E. "Firewall"). The arms were eventually sold - in February, 1000 TOW missiles were shipped to Iran. From May to November, there were additional shipments of miscellaneous weapons and parts. However, Hezbollah proceeded to take more hostages after they had released old ones, and failing to produce any meaningful results, the arms-for-hostages program was finally cancelled. "

Has this been justified? Tazmaniacs

This article is hopeless - partisan hacks war over what and what not should be included.

The worst aspects of wikipedia being displayed.

Go elsewhere if you really want to discover what Iran/Contra involves

A planeload?
The statement that “total of all arms sales was less than a planeload” doesn’t ring true. First of all, the citation provided is from Ronald Raegan’s speech where he defended the scheme. Hardly an objective reference. Secondly, what is “a planeload” anyway? Is that in volume or weight? Are we talking about a C-47 or an Antonov? Thirdly, we are told that 1,000 TOW missiles were the initial shipment. The missiles alone weigh 22 kilos each. Add another 100 kilos for the launchers. So we’re talking 22 tons of missiles, even without anything to fire them from. The cargo capacity of a C-130, for example, is 20 tons. So we’re over that for a planeload even for the first shipment and that’s estimating super conservatively. Other web references I can find cite a total of 107 tons of arms were shipped. That’s way more than even an AN-22 can haul. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) 06:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the expression can be deleted.--Atavi 08:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about citation
Ojcit, you have placed several pertinent and important "citation required" tags. There is one though, which is unclear to me:
 * "The plan went ahead, and proceeds from the arms sales went to the Contras, a group engaged in an insurgency against the left-wing Sandinista government of Nicaragua"

What is it that you want supported by a citation? If the money went to the Contras? If the Contras were engaged in insurgency?


 * I don't get this one either, what is unclear about that statement? Jlee562 05:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about citation
What concerns me is the fact that you write things that are not supported by a citation. If you cannot find a citation for a statement you make, then it is probably not true. Cooldude1234 05:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

separation of powers
I don't think lists of broad questions or themes are encyclopedic. It's not original thought, but it borders on analysis, and almost soapboxing. Also, linking to GWB may not be appropriate, since he wasn't directly involved. Yes, there are echoes of the same kinds of controversy, but if that is encyclopedic, it's too ethereal for discussion of one particular historic event. I recommend linking to a separation of powers article and moving the discussion questions to wikiversity or user group/forum. It's the reader's job to ask questions; the encyclopedia should provide succinct, specific, documented, and quantitative answers. Ojcit 18:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * About the questions you may have a point.
 * About GWB I believe you don't. The article mentions how GWB pardoned and reinstated in public office persons involved in the scandal. It does not implicate him in the scandal as such.
 * --Atavi 19:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right; I wasn't reading carefully enough, got distracted by the question marks. Did he or Reagan pardon I don't mind leaving it in there if it's referenced.  The first Bush pardoned Abrams apparently. Ojcit 01:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving the discussion questions here. They're good questions, and worth asking, but I don't feel they belong in an encyclopedia article. If there are gaps in what the article addresses, they should be filled to the extent possible while maintaining NPOV and staying on topic. Also, I don't know wikiversity's scope and policies well, but maybe some of them would make good essay topics. The Iran-Contra Affair is significant because it brought several questions into public view that continue to resonate today:
 * Does the President have unconditional authority to conduct foreign policy over the objection of Congress and the laws it passes?
 * Can the President approve selling arms to a foreign nation without congressional approval?
 * What information does the President have to provide to Congress and when should that information be supplied?
 * What information does the President have to provide the American people?
 * Can the President present factually incorrect information to the American people about key foreign policy initiatives if he believes his motives are just?
 * What authority does Congress have to oversee functions of the executive branch?
 * Does funding for foreign policy initiatives have to be approved by Congress?
 * Who defines the entire spending budget and who regulates it?
 * Is the provision of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act creating the position of independent counsel answering to the Attorney General constitutional?
 * What role does the Supreme Court have in deciding conflicts between the legislative branch and executive branch?
 * How much support is America entitled to provide to armed opposition forces seeking to replace governments with ones more sympathetic to the United States?

Most, if not all, of the constitutional and ethical questions are still unresolved. On one view, it appears that if the legislative and executive branches do not wish to work together, there are no legal remedies. Ojcit 05:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wording
"...the Contra rebels fighting to overthrow the leftist, Soviet aligned, and democratically-elected Sandinista government of Nicaragua."

versus

"...the Contra rebels fighting to overthrow the leftist and democratically-elected Sandinista government of Nicaragua."

The Sandinistas were not orthodox Marxist-Leninists, and should not be referred to as communists in the Cold War context. However, to merely refer to them as a leftist democratically elected government would be putting them on the same level as France under Mitterrand, which would make us think that the Reagan administration planned on invading France next. The Sadinista government received large sums of Soviet and Cuban aid, and this alignment should be made clear. The Contras and Reagan administration's desire to undermine and overthrow the Sandinista government needs to be put into context. There is a world of difference between the "leftist" middle class, election oriented Parti Socialiste under François Mitterrand and the "leftist" armed peasant revolutionary Sandinista movement under Daniel Oretega - a difference that should be noted, because even though the Sandinista government was democratically legitimate, they acted like typical Soviet-client guerillas.

If you feel US backed dictatorships or democracies should be noted as such, please be bold and add them. --H. C HENEY 05:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * First, in our own article on the Sandinistas, there is no support for your assertion they received "large sums of Soviet and Cuban aid". Second, do you really think it would be widely accepted if we were to start referring to countries like Japan, South Korea, and Indonesia as "US clients" or "US satellites"? -- Viajero 10:02, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first statement. They were Soviet Aligned.  Moscow was supporting them even if they weren't strict marxists.WHEELER 17:33, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The label "Soviet aligned" is inherently not neutral. What makes a country "aligned"? Why should such a label be used, and in which circumstances would it be helpful to characterize current or former governments as "aligned" to others? Is Israel US-aligned? Was Pinochet's Chile? The government that followed the Sandinistas? We certainly cannot want such debates about dozens of articles. If there is an issue it should be specified like "received large amounts of foreign or military aid" or so. Get-back-world-respect 17:58, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

- I changed "freaking United States" to "United States." Gyrofrog 00:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anon revisions
Neocons being in the Bush administration has no relevance to Iran-Contra's Constitutional implications. J. Parker Stone 03:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC) I agree, I think if people wan't to make a page about of people who wan't to bash bush do it under a differnt thing which is relevent to the page which it is on. the list has nothing to do with this article. 24.6.213.203 03:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC) west coaster

Too much junk at bottom of article
Does anyone else think the sources section should be removed? Currently the "notes" section is very similar to the "sources" section. I've tried to find a wikipedia guide to article sections, but couldn't find anything. Most articles I see just have a "references" section. Can anyone tell me why this article has both "notes" and "sources"? Xpanzion 16:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason there are notes and sources is this: The notes section is produced automatically, collecting references from the main body of the article, where the tag is used. The sources section is written out in full under the header. If you find any duplicate references you could probably remove them from the "sources" section--Atavi 10:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Support?
Should it be mentioned that the US also supplied personnel to train the Contras, and actually got into firefights with the Sandanistas? Perhaps even the fact that there was a very large bounty on American heads?--Vercalos 07:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Anything that is substantial and can be verified should be added to the story. Feel free to add.  Stiles 16:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Honduras?
Quick question, wasn't Honduras the Contras' base of operation? And I remember that we didn't just fund the Contras, we actually had soldiers there training them.--Vercalos 23:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See contras, A contra is a general spanish term, so it could be used to describe any type of rebel group, maybe there were contras active in Honduras. However, the Contras in this article were active only in Nicaragua as far as I can see. Xpanzion 18:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, as far as I know, the Nicaragua Contras, referred to in this article, did operate out of Honduras, and probably received training there as well.--Atavi 10:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Drug money
Is assistance with drug trafficking strictly related to this particular scandal? If it's not proven, then it may belong in another place. If the suggestion is that the Contras have enough income from other sources that U.S. funding wouldn't have a material effect on their ability to do what they do, I don't consider that NPOV. Most organizations have income from more than once source, and it doesn't diminish the supposed culpability of an alleged terrorist sponsor if that sponsor is one of many. Ojcit 02:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The drug money treatment started as a single sentence and gradually came to be what it is now. It's not a bad idea to have a separate article, and go back to one sentence about it in this article.
 * I think it started as a side note, and then got expanded by people who knew about the subject.
 * We should discuss a potential offshoot article, its title, etc and perhaps move most of the material there.
 * --Atavi 09:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

2 cents
Don't mean to but in on this argument. I just thought I would give an independent frame of reference. I admittedly don't know as much about this topic as it seems most of the people writing here do (hence my reading the article in the first place), but I felt that the argument was very informative and didn't feel that it was particularly skewed towards the left or right. I feel much more editing may be splitting hairs. This being said, I'm glad that there is a forum like this for the discussion and improvement of articles. Take this all as you will.

Where'd the article go?
I'm relatively new to wikipedia.. but I know for a fact that the Iran-Contra incident can't be summed up with the word "dipset". Is there something I'm missing?
 * You were looking at an edit in which someone vandalized the article. The edit has since been reverted, see here. When in doubt, click on the "Page History" link in a given article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You may sometimes get stale versions due to a slight bug in the revision history (quickly consecutive edits appear in wrong order). It helps to purge the cache (go to the history, then type "purge" instead of "history" in your browser - like this). 213.54.211.23 10:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Separation of Powers section and punctuation
The section on separation of powers consists largely of a list of questions, lacking in question marks. I think that question marks should be added to the end of the questions. If there isn't any disaggreement, I'll go ahead and do it. (and I keep on forgetting to sign stuff --- sorry) Ealex292 08:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

WALSH, Lawrence E. "Firewall"?
In the article there's a parenthetical expression: (WALSH, Lawrence E. "Firewall"). To which all I have to say is: huh? What does this even mean? Could someone rewrite this so at least it's clear? That is, assuming anyone knows what it's all about? --71.136.79.237 15:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

When did Oliver North join the plan?
Please read the following:


 * In January of 1986, Michael Ledeen, a consultant of Robert McFarlane concocted a plan whereby an intermediary would sell arms to Iran in exchange for the release of the hostages. At first, the Iranians had refused the weapons from Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian intermediary, when both Oliver North and Ghorbanifar created a 370% markup. The arms were eventually sold in February with the shipment of 1000 BGM-71 TOW (Tube-launched, Optically-sighted, Wire-guided) missiles to Iran. From May to November 1986, there were additional shipments of miscellaneous weapons and parts. Despite the fact that arms were being sold to Iran, no hostages were being released. This resulted in Ledeen's plan failing. In the end, only a single hostage was released.

I should mention the Iran-Contra Affair consisted of two stages. The first stage was a plan by Michael Ledeen, but that plan failed as the paragraph states. The second stage is where Oliver North came into the scene, when he came up with the second plan. Either the author of the above paragraph (some of the text is by myself) skipped much of the stoy by going directly to Oliver North, or something else is going on. This concerns me because the factual accuracy of this article is in question. If you do not believe there were two stages of the Iran-Contra Affair, make sure to check out Megan Tuck's piece on this matter. It is the only writing I have read that mentions two seperate plans proposed by two different people.

I would appreciate commentary. Stiles 04:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe some of the confusion comes from the statement "In January of 1986, Michael Ledeen, a consultant of Robert McFarlane concocted a plan". Leeden's plan started in January 1985, and failed shortly after that. North's plan started on November 30, 1985, and the Iranians finally accepted the arms in February, and continued from May to November 1986. The hostages were actually released under Leeden's plan, and North's plan seems to have been more to get money to the Contras. While Leeden did sell arms to the Iranians and it can be considered part of the affair, it is not the widely known part because it was not until North came and sold the arms for money to give to the Contras that it became known as the Iran-Contra Affair.

Also, was the 370% markup in the intermediaries of Leeden's plan or a fund-raising part of North's plan?

That's what I have found regarding this. --67.65.160.195 01:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see what you are saying, but to be honest, it doesn't make sense. The Iran-Contra Affair was exposed on November 3, 1985, so how could it have continued when everyone in the nation was talking about including Congress?  Besides, Oliver North was fired at some point, though I am not sure of the exact date.  We do know, however, he was fired that same month: November.  Therefore, the plan could not have continued.  In any case, do you have reference that you can cite saying the affair continued after it was exposed?


 * The hostages were not released under Ledeen's plan. Only a single hostage was released under Ledeen's plan.  More were released under North's plan.  Check out An Affair To Remember which is also cited in the article.


 * You mention that North's plan is what truly became known as the Iran-Contra Affair. Well, why is that?  The main problem with the affair is that arms were being sold to Iran.  That was a bigger problem than money being given to the Contras.  Reagan's November 13th speech first and foremost addresses the sale of arms to those he called "terrorists," the Iranian government.


 * As for the markup, I can't find any reference stating there was a 370% markup. I did find a source saying there were two seperate markups.  There was one markup by Oliver North of an additional $15 million, and there was a markup by Ghorbanifar, who created a 41% markup.  Check out Robert M. Gates.  I will have to remove the 370% markup claim. Stiles 03:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe it was exposed in November 1986, as seen here. It stopped immediately after it was exposed.  And where do you see that hostages were released under North?  I see no mention of any hostages being released except for the one on September 15th, 1985.


 * While the sale of arms to Iran was, in Reagan's eyes, the bigger wrongdoing and went against policy, it was not illegal. Reagan said that the U.S. should not give arms to Iran because it would be seen as a sign of weakness and would show the shah that he could get what he wanted.  However, the diverting of money to the Contras was illegal under the Boland Amendment passed in 1982 which stated that federal intelligence money could not be covertly sent to aid the rebels in Nicaragua.  This is why North got in much more trouble, and his part turned it into a scandal.  He was never convicted of that because of a technicality saying that the NSA was not an intelligence agency as per that amendment, though he still violated the spirit of the law.
 * --BotLobsta 22:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right about the date of exposure, and the scandal began sometime in the summer of 1985, I believe. I will have to make sure the article is factually correct.  I believe I am mistaken about hostages being released under North's plan.  It seems I misread something earlier.  The question then is...when were the rest released, and why were they released?  We do know that there were six hostages in total.


 * I am pretty sure North wasn't jailed because statements were used against him that he issued under immunity. He was given full immunity by Congress, I believe, and therefore, everything he said there could not have been used against him court.  The government, nevertheless, did use it against him, and I believe that is why he won.  Stiles 04:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Who decided it was to be a direct sale?
Like I said on other issues, things just don't add up with the Iran-Contra Affair. I am finding several sources that are clearly contradicting eachother. It is unbelievable. The article by Megan Tuck states:


 * On November 30, 1985, McFarlane resigned and was succeeded by Admiral John Poindexter. On that same day, Lieutenant Colonel North of the National Security Council staff proposed a new “arms-for-hostages” deal which involved the transfer of 3,300 Israeli Tows and 50 Israeli Hawks to Iran in exchange for the release of the remaining five hostages. Colonel North, on December 9, proposed the direct delivery of the arms.

The Jewish Virtual Library piece says something different:


 * By December 1985, the President [Reagan] had decided future sales to the Iranians would come directly from U.S. supplies.

I am astonished as to how obvious the contradiction is, and since we do not do original research, how do we know which sources we go with? I don't know the facts myself, and I hope someone will be able to shed a light on who decided the arms sale would be direct. Stiles 03:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking of giving up on this article
As interesting as this topic may be, the facts are out of hand. I am just trying to write about the matter, but it is much too difficult. I can't tell what is and what is not a fact. Also, almost every source (articles found on the Internet) has different "facts," and this easily leads to confusion. I am considering abandoning this project, and I hope someone with more patience will pick it up. If I change my mind, I'll be back. Stiles 03:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's an exercise in patience and tenacity. I'd have to agree that unbiased sources are hard to come by.  You're not alone.  Ojcit 05:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

John Poindexter?
Just bouncing around links to Poindexter's wiki page and was astounded at how little information there was there relating him to Iran-Contra. Would someone want to pop over there and add a little detail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Poindexter

Just a request, thanks! --Alex

More vandalism
I am new to Wikipedia or would make this fix myself -- isn't "Drug pee money" vandalism? Is this article getting vandalized a lot? Thanks for taking note! -John —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnpdeever (talk • contribs) 19:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Clarity; Facts of the Arms Transaction
I am a student of this article, and do not intend to profess any knowledge superior to those who have written it. In reading the article, as a novice, I am unclear as to the situation in the Iran-Contra affair as to the transaction of hostages between the US and Iran. Observe:

I belive the purpose of this article is to brief a complete novice of the situation of the historical facts in a politically neutral way. I have some knowledge of the situation from experience during it's revelation to the public, but reading this article could not breach the chasms in my understanding of the "cooperation" between the Iranian and American forces. While the article is satisfactorily neutral in it's political stature (relievingly so, I might add), it honestly does not promote any clarity to the nationality of the hostages were given back to their (unknown) origin.

I might add, that as a novice to the subject, when I read the article I see several possible implications described. If six of the thirty Westrn hostages were American, of what nationality were the three who were released? Their nationality (as Americans, or as American allies) would corroborate the way that the US government acted towards the situation. For example, if they were all American, what would have happened? If they were all American allies, how would the situation have been different? The omission of this technicality could be an oversight, or it could be a "glazing" tactic to paste neutrality over the seams of the article.

I am not politically biased towards the Iran-Contra affair, nor to this article, I would just like to see more specific facts recored in what I believe is a crucial factor in the affair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yakksoho (talk • contribs) 09:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Contras
I don't believe it helps this article to label the Contras as "anti-communist." The Contras were a heterogeneous bunch, and included ex-Sandinistas (like Edén Pastora). Many would also argue that the Sandinistas were not communist, and to label them as such is POV. Let's stick with "rebels" or something neutral. Notmyrealname 19:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you're completely wrong. With regards to the United States' foreign policy, the Contras were an "anti-Communist" force and this is why the Reagan Administration supported them.  You're welcome to provide nuance to the heterogeneous makeup of the group in the article about them specifically.  As far as the Iran-Contra affair is concerned, the US supported the Contras because they were anti-Communist insurgents.  Period - end of story.  --AStanhope 00:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Reagan supported them for many reasons, one of them being that his administration viewed them as anti-communist insurgents. However, that doesn't make it true. The article on the Contras makes this clear. Since there is indeed a great deal of nuance and heterogeneity it is therefore inappropriate and unhelpful to slap on labels like this. Notmyrealname 01:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How about "supporting the Contra insurgents who were fighting to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua." Much more neutral, and with the added advantage of being true. Notmyrealname 01:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the article to refer to them as "anti-Sandinista" simply because I thought it was more specific. I hope this won't be a problem. Atropos 06:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

broken notes
The link for note 41 is broken. I guess the CIA no longer things this report is important to the public (probably reclassified as state secrets). Does anyone know where another copy of the report can be found? I quick glance at the memory hole didn't turn anything up. Funkyj 21:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting quote from singer/actor Kris Kristofferson
from The Guardian: But Kristofferson gets in a parting shot about Iran-Contra and the war in Iraq. "Iran-Contra! We should have jailed all those guys for ever back then, and we wouldn't be where we are right now - because it's the same guys now, the same 20 guys!" Can this be substantiated by anything else? --Torchpratt (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

title change
should "affair" in the title of this article be capitalized? is there a capitalization convnention at work here? tried to move but redir iran-contra affair already exists Phil E. Transplant '08 13:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support move per NAME. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Shouldn't it be Iran with a capital "I"? -- Nudve (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it should haha. I've changed it. Happyme22 (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

GA revert
This article's GA nomination was passed without a review, so I have reverted it. I would also like to point out that the last line of the "Tower Commission" section and the first two paragraphs of "Convictions, pardons, and reinstatements" need to be sourced, as they are potentially controversial and contain quotations. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and thank you for doing that. I did not know that it had been passed without a review, which is not good. And the fact tags only help us in getting this article up to GA! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Link to More American imperialism/intervention?
Perhaps a link to more examples of intervention should be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.135.229 (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could elaborate a bit more on your request? Happyme22 (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Long term consequences ?
I am working on a Dutch translation of this article, which was first limited to three paragraphs without any references. I am not a specialist in this field, but I wondered if there hasn't been any speculation on the relation between the Iran-Contra affair and the 9/11 attacks? I am not hinting on a direct relation, but it seems to me this affair may have played a part in the rise of islamist terrorism in the ninetees and after. Does anyone know of a source treating this subject? For instance, Robert Parry/ AdeleivdVelden (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert Gates and the Iran-Contra affair
After reading Gates & the Iran-Contra Legacy by Ivan Eland at Consortiumnews.com, I conclude that the article on the Iran-Contra affair needs information on the role of Robert Gates.

On the Dutch page I have added a slightly summarized version of the following paragraph on Robert Gates.

"One of the persons mentioned by Walsh was Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense under George W. Bush from December 18, 2006 and from January 20, 2009 under Barack Obama. Walsh concluded in the Tower Report that "(...) contrary to Gates' sworn testimoy before a grand jury and at a confirmation hearing, “evidence proves” that then-Deputy Director of Central Intelligence Gates knew about the unconstitutional diversion of profits from Iran-bound arms sales to the Contras sooner than he let on."

If we agree on this addition, please feel free to add it. AdeleivdVelden (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)>>>>>>>

Dutch translation
Why is the Dutch translation not shown? What did I do wrong?BoogaLouie (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdeleivdVelden (talk • contribs) 14:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate Sources
Sources 6 and 47 seem to be duplicates. Calder 02:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see it. One is a speech on March 4, 1987, the other on November 13, 1986. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

reply to happyme22
My original edits since redone by happyme http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran-Contra_affair&diff=267296763&oldid=267291167 The wikpedia guidlines for an article lead WP:LEAD .....


 * I'm not "defending" the page; I have it on my watchlist because I've done extensive work on it and got it up to GA status. As for what you wrote above: that was okay and a discription of the affair earlier up may be good. I think that a timeline should be established, however, and we should retain the "which was revealed in November 1986 as a result of earlier events during the Reagan administration" rather than simply "during the Reagan administration". It is neutral and just to point out that the affair was revealed in 1986, half-way into Reagan's second term, instead of the broad "during the Reagan administration", which leaves it to the reader to find out when it was and results in additional questions.


 * no shame in guarding. articles can get pretty messy without someone watching over them. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I know you said above that you have more coming (good), but since I'm here I'm going to go ahead and list some of my thoughts:


 * The addition of 'relatively' to 'moderate' needs a citation. There are citations for moderate, but not for relatively moderate.
 * Agreed. (I have to say here that my expertise (such as it is) is in Iranian history and Islam, not the Iran-Contra affair itself.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Noting that this group of moderates was opposed to the Ayatollah is extremely important, for Reagan says in his autobiography that he would not have authorized the Israeli plan had they been hardliners or supporters of Khomeini. Whether he was bluffing or not, we don't know, but that is his account.
 * Here's the problem: we have copious verbage about how the Iranians dealt with were "moderates" (the word moderate, as in "moderate Iran group" or "moderate Iranians," occurs 13 times in the article), and of Reagan's self-described intensions:
 * Reagan initially rejected the plan, until Israel sent information to the U.S. showing that the moderate Iranians were opposed to terrorism and had fought against it.[19] Now having a reason to trust the moderates, Reagan approved the transaction, which was meant to be between Israel and the moderates in Iran, with the U.S. reimbursing Israel.[17] In his 1990 autobiography An American Life, Reagan states that he was deeply committed to securing the release of the hostages; it was this compassion that motivated his support for the arms initiatives.[1] The president requested that the moderate Iranians do everything in their capability to free the hostages held by Hezbollah
 * but who are these moderates? Did anyone find out?? What were their names? Was there a group of them they all belonged to? Did they oppose Khomeini? Surely by now we know more about them then Reagan did back then.
 * There is only one Iranian (in Iran) mentioned that I could find: In July 1985, Israel sent American-made BGM-71 TOW antitank missiles to Iran through an arms dealer named Manucher Ghorbanifar, a friend of Iran's Prime Minister.
 * The link for Iranian prime minister goes to short article on prime ministers in Iran, at the end of which is a link to list of prime ministers, from which you can scroll down about 10 feet and find out that between 1981 – 1989 Mir-Hossein Mousavi was prime minister of Iran.


 * So the problem is two fold:


 * 1) In Iran at the time, anti-Khomeini groups and activists had all been crushed. Any Iranian group or person in a position to negotiate for arms to go to the Iranian military, could not breath a word in opposition to Khomeini.  It would be like an American official in the 1950s coming out in support of the Soviet Union.
 * 2) Mousavi was one of Khomeini's core supporters. Althought the article on Mousavi does not say so, Mousavi was one of the "radicals" of Iranian politics. He was a member of the Islamic Republic Party. Later on the radicals such as him feuded with "pragmatic conservatives" like Rafanjani who wanted to open Iran to more foreign investment.  To give an example of who was who in Iranian politics back then, another base of support for the radicals of Iran was Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line, the hostage takers of the American embassy.

So we need more information and rewriting for this article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the response. Your expertise is very beneficial! So we are clear on Khomeini, but what about everything below? Do you plan on commenting on those? We are not in a hurry, just wondering. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There was no such thing as "Iranian" payment; the U.S. was to be reimbursed by Israel, not Iran.
 * The deterioration from the initial plan into one of arms-for-hostages was crucial and needs to be retained. After all, that was how the problem started. Reagan authorized the initial Israeli plan, though there has not been any evidence uncovered that he supervised or new about the failure of the original plan and its deterioration, which should be noted.
 * Reagan being unaware of the diversion to the Contras is one of the most talked about aspects of the entire affair. No one will ever know if he really did authorize the Conta diversion, but, as with the deterioration of the first part of the plan, there has not been any evidence uncovered showing that Reagan authorized the Contra diversion. That has to be noted for to achieve accuracy and a NPOV, for it paints an incomplete picture of the scandal without mentioning it.


 * Those are my grievances; the rest was great and you definitely helped to improve the article's flow and structure. Hope to hear back soon. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * quite busy right now but I'll go along with
 * There was no such thing as "Iranian" payment; the U.S. was to be reimbursed by Israel, not Iran.
 * and this
 * The deterioration from the initial plan into one of arms-for-hostages was crucial and needs to be retained. After all, that was how the problem started. Reagan authorized the initial Israeli plan, though there has not been any evidence uncovered that he supervised or new about the failure of the original plan and its deterioration, which should be noted.


 * but this ...
 * Reagan being unaware of the diversion to the Contras is one of the most talked about aspects of the entire affair. No one will ever know if he really did authorize the Conta diversion, but, as with the deterioration of the first part of the plan, there has not been any evidence uncovered showing that Reagan authorized the Contra diversion. That has to be noted for to achieve accuracy and a NPOV, for it paints an incomplete picture of the scandal without mentioning it.
 * ... has a problem: There are three different mentions of Reagan's innocence in the lead.
 * members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages, without the direct authorization of President Ronald Reagan.
 * While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause, there has not been any evidence uncovered showing that he authorized this plan
 * Several investigations ensued, including those by the United States Congress and the three-man, Reagan-appointed Tower Commission. Neither found any evidence that President Reagan himself knew of the extent of the multiple programs.
 * I know you are devoted to President Reagan, but surely one (the last one) will suffice.
 * --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. Just to clarify, I am no way "devoted" to President Reagan, rather I have worked extensively on his article in the past and, as a result, it was able to achieve FA status. So I know about the man. Let me amend the page and see what you think. Happyme22 (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Guys, there is one other reason to cite why Reagan had no knowledge of the diversion: Poindexter testified clearly and flatly that he did not tell the president on purpose--http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_03.htm.Jarhed (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Boland Amendment
The Boland Amendment is cited as "banning direct aid" to the Contras. However, the language of the Boland Amendment referred only to "appropriated funds" which means funds that Congress has appropriated for a specific use, Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524 (1838). Nonappropriated funds, such as from the sale of government property, simply were not banned by the Boland Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment The goal here seems to be to misstate what the Boland Amendment actually said, and then accuse Reagan and his administration of not following the misinterpretation. The question is fairly raised whether the Boland Amendment was actually intended to limit military aid to the contras (however military aid is actually defined) or whether it was part of a smoke screen intended to give Reagan cover? This is the danger of interpreting legal documents as though they were written by actual human beings instead of lawyers.JPStrikes (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your fringe theory would definitely need a citation before including anything like it in the article (see WP:RS). And there were WP:NPOV problems. Happyme22 (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More than a fringe theory is the Reagan administration opinion that the prohibition was unconstitutional. The article on the amendment discusses this issue.  Reagan maneuvered mightily to prevent such a test, and it never was tested, so we will never know.  However, any claim that the Reagan administration violated the Boland Amendment must be viewed in that light.Jarhed (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

US Troops in Honduras
Can anyone find any reliable sources for the presense of US troops in Honduras, training the Contras? I know they were there, but unfortunately, all my sources are from first hand accounts(veterans from both sides, one from the USAF, the other from the Sandinistas).--Vercalos (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have looked for years without success. I suspect they are classified.  Good luck with that.Jarhed (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How about, "The Honduran military participated in joint military maneuvers with the United States on Honduran territory (operations used by the military&mdash;behind Congress's back&mdash;to build a military infrastructure for the Contras, to arm them) and gave the Contras logistic support by covering their retreat from Nicaragua."?


 * Also, has info about this, mentioning Operation Solid Shield, about which see .  at Encyclopedia of the Nations says, about Solid Shield, "... These maneuvers tested the ability of the army, navy, marine corps, air force, and coast guard to mobilize and operate together in a large-scale operation, which was also meant to help train and build a logistical infrastructure for the Contras based in Honduras.  ..."


 * There is more stuff out there, including "PRESENCIA MILITAR DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS Y SU INFLUENCIA EN EL DESARROLLO EDUCATIVO, ORGANIZACIONAL Y TECNOLÓGICO DE LAS FUERZAS ARMADAS DE HONDURAS Y CENTRO AMÉRICA" ("MILITARY PRESENCE ON THE UNITED STATES AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE DESARROLLO EDUCATIVO, ORGANIZACIONAL Y TECNOLÓGICO DE LAS EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL FUERZAS ARMADAS DE HONDURAS Y CENTRO AMÉRICA ARMED FORCES OF HONDURAS AND CENTRAL AMERICA"), a Masters thesis in Spanish. I don't speak Spanish, but I see that Google translates a snippet from that as, "1987 SHIELD SOLID (SOLID SHIELD), Exercises Military Combined Solid Shield 87 kicking on May 13 and are regarded as the most massive maneuver performed to date United States territory in Central America. (break) 1988 attempted invasion, troops arrive 3.200 Americans of the 82 Airborne Division to the FTC-Bravo Palmerola in Honduras in response to a complaint of invasion Nicaragua." Also this -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Some additions and changes that I would like to make
1. There is no discussion of Oliver North's testimony before Congress in 1987. It was a huge media sensation at the time, over a period of months. So far as I can determine, Col. North was as truthful and forthcoming in that testimony as he was able. His testimony made him a national figure and a hero to many, and in fact his truthfulness was probably a major factor in his exoneration on appeal.

2. There is no mention of the timing of the Weinburger indictment by Walsh, nor of GHWB’s pardon of him. Walsh announced his indictment of Weinburger mere days before the 1992 presidential election, which clearly indicates a political agenda. Further, sworn testimony before the commission indicated that of all of the knowledgeable players in the incident, only Weinburger objected to the plan. In other words, Weinburger could not have been more innocent, and it is easy to infer that GHWB had no choice but to pardon him.

3. I think that the use of Oliver North’s mugshot to illustrate this article violates NPOV, especially in light of his successful appeal. I am working on getting better images.

4. There is no mention of GHWB's role in dealing with the Contras. North's biography mentions several vivid incidents, and while peripheral, these might be pertinent to the story.

I am willing to work on the above, but I would like some discussion first. I don’t want to edit war with anyone. Have a great day.

BTW, great work and effort on the article. I am impressed.Jarhed (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"unknowingly connected"
Can anyone clarify the meaning of "unknowingly" in the sentence "...who were unknowingly connected to the Army of Guardians..." (i.e., unknown to whom and in what manner)? Greg Ravn (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This needs a citation. Otherwise it's simply an apology for the Reagan administration. SanchoAnchovy (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard Secord
There's no mention of him anywhere, despite his lengthy testimony before Congress and subsequent trials.Uniquerman (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to make an edit, please do.Jarhed (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"convicted" vs "indicted"
This article seems to confuse "convicted" with "indicted," at least in the case of Weinberger, who was indicted and then pardoned by G.H.W. Bush. Weinberger was not convicted, at least not as far as I could tell from looking at some of the sources listed in the notes. Yet the article refers to him as having been "convicted."Redound (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC) P.s. I have removed the word "convicted" from the relevant sentence.71.178.144.245 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thank you.Jarhed (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory
I'm not sure when and why that happened exactly, but why is the iran-cntra-affair categorized as conspiracy theory incliding that navigation bar. That looks like seriously misleading categorization. If no convincing justification can be given for that it should be removed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

US govt drug involvement
One sentence has been added, "The report however, despite being the product of lengthy and detailed investigation, stated that the allegations were "exaggerated" and "unsubstantiated."

The insinuation of the original, "The matter was further examined in the 1997 report of the US Department of Justice Inspector General, where the main question under investigation was whether CIA was instrumental in creating the crack cocaine epidemic in Los Angeles, and where evidence was presented of patronizing by CIA of drug trafficking to Los Angeles, California.[54]" is that there in fact was govt involvement. The report is cited as evidence of or support for this when in fact it concludes that claims of drug money funding the Contras were exaggerated and that reports of drug importation, influence peddling, etc were unsubstantiated.

Whether or not the US govt or any of its agencies were involved in the drug trade or in protecting the druggies is neither here nor there. One should not cite a reference to support a claim when the reference actually dismisses it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilde27 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually the sentence wasn't really that wrong, since the executative summary of the literally states "We found that the allegations contained in the original Mercury News articles were exaggerations of the actual facts.". So I reinstated the sentence but removed the "unsubstantiated" claim and added a link to the report on a government website. Somenody however should add page number or paragraph/chapter references for the earlier citations, since you can't expect people to reead the whole lengty report just to verify a single claim.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

drug trafficking
There should probably be more mention about the allegations of drug trafficking on the part of the contras. It is currently scantly represented in the article, yet it represented a major part of the scandal (at the time, an entire book was written on it, "Cocaine Politics", and later Gary Webb's research purported to uncover links to the LA crack trade as well).96.246.39.61 (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you are welcome to make some properly sourced additions, but be aware that this might be controversial.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * CIA/Contra involvement in drug trafficking is actually quite well documented, and played a major role in the Iran-Contra affair; see, for example,, , or . -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You get no objection from me, but there are some sources claiming somewhat otherwise like the congressional report. So I just wanted to point out that some editors (not me though) might object.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Skipping the beginning?
When reading this article, the first thing that perturbed me was the fact that after the overview, the article jumps straight to the scandal, without any pretext whatsoever! I would really appreciate it if this article include some of the following points: -US ties or relationship with the Contras before the scandal -Us ties or relationship with the Iranians before the scandal -The events that unfolded that allowed the US workers to be taken hostage -The actual hostage-taking event itself -What the Reagan Administration was doing in present-tense, as in while the public was unaware.

I feel as if the article jumps to the exposure in the beginning, without setting any pretext. Bullercruz1 (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain how these lines in the article do not contradict each other?
During the Reagan administration, senior Reagan administration officials and President Reagan secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo.

...

Several investigations ensued, including those by the United States Congress and the three-man, Reagan-appointed Tower Commission. Neither found any evidence that President Reagan himself knew of the extent of the multiple programs

--Sirfith (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is explained in the cited source. Essentially is is a somewhat awkward description, which doesn't fully reflect the fine differences given in the source. The source essentially states that Reagan knew of the contra support and than he knew of the weapons for hostages deal, but he may not have known about how they got linked by his staff and which illegal activities were involved in the details.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * North and Poindexter said that Reagan did not know about the Contra funding program. However, everyone in the administration knew that Reagan wanted the Contras supported.Jarhed (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Weapon Condition
Weren't the missiles we sent them defective? I don't remember where I heard that. Anyone know what the condition of the SAM's and what was wrong with them? Smaug99 (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if you provide a reliable source, we can certainly take that into consideration. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kind of late, but my take on it is not to bother considering that more than 2500 TOW missiles were sent to the Iranians over a certain period of time, and they would certainly have noted if they were defect since they used them in the war against Iraq and thus ceased any further purchases of the expensive weapons. Pavuvu (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I read the same somewhere, and it's worth adding when sourced. The missiles were ostensibly being returned to the U.S. from West Germany for refitting as TOW II missiles but were diverted to Iran instead. The missiles Iran received were unreliable. I don't recall the source where I read these particular details, but they jive with what I knew at the time. Rklawton (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. shipped TOW missiles, not SAMs. All American TOW missiles were being refitted at the time to become the TOW II missile. This made the transfers easier - the missiles were routinely being removed from bunkers for shipment stateside, so the operation didn't provoke any questions on the ground. As far as "defective" goes, it's probably more accurate to say they weren't "reliable" and that the U.S. knew they weren't reliable (hence the refit), and that Iran got ripped off in the exchange (committing an act of war by taking diplomats hostage notwithstanding). No doubt all of this is sourced somewhere by now. This was all Army lore back in the '80s when I served. Rklawton (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Reagan Testified
I don't see in this article any mention of Ronald Reagan testifying during a trial on Iran-Contra. On Youtube, a simple search of "Ronald Reagan Testimony" shows about 22 videos of him testifying. I don't know much about the Iran-Contra affair, and the reason I'm even typing this is because I came on here to find out why exactly he was testifying and received NO information. Could someone add it?--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Arrow Air 1285 crash
Why is this in the Iran-contra article?

I see no evidence to tie the crash to Iran Contra. Does someone suspect that this crash was caused by iran, as a result of the "botched" missile sales? If so, then that should be clarified.

H870rce (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * the passage was not related to the Iran-Contra Affair --no RS mentions it--so I deleted it. Rjensen (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Nicaragua Vs The United States???
I was surprised to see that there was a whole article devoted to the legal international conflict between Nicaragua and the United States, that wasnt adressed, not even once, in an article devoted to the conflict that gave birth to the above mentioned dispute in the first place.I have added a short paragraph under the headline "aftermath" even do, in my opinion, there should be a whole section dedicated to this. Yet still, I think is best to discuss the issue before making any mayor changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.233.79.27 (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * this as well as the many contra war controversies preceding the scandal should be mentioned as background (human rights abuses on the part of the contras were extensive and horrific, as confirmed by human rights watch and several church groups who conducted reports; the boland amendment should be mentioned; general issues with the background of the contras and origins of the FDN leadership as ex-Somoza-guardsmen should be mentioned). 96.246.39.61 (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

When the background refers to the human rights abuses by the United States against Nicaragua, it would be worth referring to the case before the International Court of Justice (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), ICJ, Judgement of 27 June 1986, Merits). The Court, for instance, decides:


 * Decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State;
 * Decides that the United States of America is under an obligation to make reparation to the Republic of Nicaragua for all injury caused to Nicaragua by the breaches of obligations under customary international law enumerated above;

FredericGo (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath
The Nicaragua vs US case at the International Court of Justice cannot be part of the "aftermath" of the Iran-Contra affair, as the case was filed by Nicaragua on 9 April 1984 Application instituting proceedings and the finale decision on merits was delivered by the Court on 27 June 1986 Decision of merits FredericGo (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

eRumor 9/11
I concur with Jarhed. I just received an eRumor from my aunt that forms a connection between the Iran-Contra affair, and the Sept 11 destruction of the World Trade Towers. Attached was a reply-forward debasing the connection. I personally am not up on this topic, and feel that the inclusion of the 1987 Congress testimony is important. We all agree that the Sept 11, 2001 attack could have been avoided, however, using it to validate an invalid argument is not only bad historical accuracy, but does injustice to the victims. I propose that someone up to the task, obtains factual references to either argument, and provides a comparison between the two claims, as to how the rumor/contradiction may have originated.

Please open a new section that either validates the eRumor, or else proves the eRumor as nothing more than rumor. The rumor/contradiction can be found at http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/ollienorth-osama.htm but I am not familiar with TruthOrFiction.com's credentials. Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see many problems here. You're going to need a reliable source to start with, as an email from your Aunt which was picked up by TruthorFiction.com isn't going to cut it. Happyme22 (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

that isn't a reliable source Thewarrior72 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Archive was lost, not sure how to fix it, HELP!
Archive was lost with this edit, not sure how to fix it, please help! Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I restored the archive, hopefully in the correct way. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

1996 FBB versions of Iran-Contra files
This would have been useful for people who are unable to open PDF files or have slow connections:
 * https://web.archive.org/web/19971015014859/http://fedbbs.access.gpo.gov/libs/iran_rpt.htm - http://www.webcitation.org/6Qv0Sex1d

Unfortunately these are NOT archived:
 * ftp://fedbbs.access.gpo.gov/gpo_bbs/iran_rpt/iran_1.exe
 * ftp://fedbbs.access.gpo.gov/gpo_bbs/iran_rpt/iran_1.doc

If there are versions still hosted on government servers, try to archive them or upload them to the Commons WhisperToMe (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Syria's role in scandal leaking to the press.
Today an article of a CIA journal was declassified relating this scandal. It says Syria played a role in leaking the scandal to the press, it also explains its motivations to do so. It may be useful to this article. As far as I understand this information is new, but I'm not that informed about the topic to make the assertion in an edit, so I'll leave it to you. I may come later to contribute. See ya.

http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/DOC_0000621341.pdf HOW THE IRAN-CONTRA STORY LEAKED Document Number: 0000621341 http://www.foia.cia.gov/collection/declassified-articles-studies-intelligence-cias-house-intelligence-journal

Fernando A. Gimenez (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits by boogalouie (me)
A defense of my edits for editor Happyme22, who appears to be defending this page. My edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran-Contra_affair&diff=267296763&oldid=267291167 The wikpedia guidlines for an article lead WP:LEAD

"which was revealed in November 1986 as a result of earlier events " with "an arms-for-hostages deal with Iran and funding for the Nicaraguan Contras group." I put it to you that the reader looking for a quick summary is going to be more interested in this, than when the scandal was revealed. (to be continued)
 * First off, IMHO the article ought to start out if at all possible with a summary of what the issue is about, in this case how Iran and how the contras are involved. So I replaced

A — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogaLouie (talk • contribs) 00:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not "defending" the page; I have it on my watchlist because I've done extensive work on it and got it up to GA status. As for what you wrote above: that was okay and a discription of the affair earlier up may be good. I think that a timeline should be established, however, and we should retain the "which was revealed in November 1986 as a result of earlier events during the Reagan administration" rather than simply "during the Reagan administration". It is neutral and just to point out that the affair was revealed in 1986, half-way into Reagan's second term, instead of the broad "during the Reagan administration", which leaves it to the reader to find out when it was and results in additional questions.


 * I know you said above that you have more coming (good), but since I'm here I'm going to go ahead and list some of my thoughts:


 * The addition of 'relatively' to 'moderate' needs a citation. There are citations for moderate, but not for relatively moderate.
 * Noting that this group of moderates was opposed to the Ayatollah is extremely important, for Reagan says in his autobiography that he would not have authorized the Israeli plan had they been hardliners or supporters of Khomeini. Whether he was bluffing or not, we don't know, but that is his account.
 * There was no such thing as "Iranian" payment; the U.S. was to be reimbursed by Israel, not Iran.
 * The deterioration from the initial plan into one of arms-for-hostages was crucial and needs to be retained. After all, that was how the problem started. Reagan authorized the initial Israeli plan, though there has not been any evidence uncovered that he supervised or new about the failure of the original plan and its deterioration, which should be noted.
 * Reagan being unaware of the diversion to the Contras is one of the most talked about aspects of the entire affair. No one will ever know if he really did authorize the Conta diversion, but, as with the deterioration of the first part of the plan, there has not been any evidence uncovered showing that Reagan authorized the Contra diversion. That has to be noted for to achieve accuracy and a NPOV, for it paints an incomplete picture of the scandal without mentioning it.


 * Those are my grievances; the rest was great and you definitely helped to improve the article's flow and structure. Hope to hear back soon. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you Reagan's Biographer? You have totally rewritten history on this page. The article as it stands now practically makes Reagan and Bush sound like heros. Oh look everybody! They were trying to save hostages the whole time! Nothing to see here. Jeff Carr (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Historical Revisionism?
This article seems to suggest that the Iran-Contra affair was about exchanging weapons for hostages. As little as five years ago, the Iran-Contra affair was about covertly selling arms to Iran to covertly fund various projects in Central America and had absolutely nothing to do with the hostage situation, which was generally considered to be a Republican ploy to tear down Jimmy Carter, whatsoever. When did this revision of history become mainstream? Should a section explaining the revision, why it happened and what lead to it's ascendancy be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.121.196 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The hostage question was a part of the discussions at the inception of the program. There was debate within the executive branch as to whether the hostages or diplomatic relations with Iran ought to be the focus of talks, with some arguing that the release of hostages must precede any diplomatic discussions, and others advocating the forging of diplomatic relations first, with the release of Hezbollah-held hostages coming as a natural result of such a renewed relationship. So, the hostages were in fact part of discussions from the beginning, but had nothing to do with Carter, except in the superficial similarity that there were also Iran-held hostages during Carter's administration. I would recommend the book "Perilous Statecraft: An insider's account of the Iran-Contra Affair" by Michael Ledeen, which has the advantage of having been written very close to the event by a person who participated in them enough to have a good view without being too close to have a decently objective perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.233.184 (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Historically, Iran will not enter into deals if it involves releasing American hostages or prisoners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.107.150 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Iran–Contra affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080507184846/http://www.consortiumnews.com:80/2004/060204.html to http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/060204.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Christic Institute
Can anyone explain how the Christic Institute is given credit for uncovering Iran Contra? To my knowledge it was a Lebanese publication which first reported on the arms sale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.45.7 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The material referred to above was added 23:14, 12 May 2014 then removed 00:48, 13 July 2014. Despite the fact that Avirgan v. Hull had no merit and was thrown out as a frivolous lawsuit, Daniel Sheehan and his supporters like to claim that "the Christic Institute uncovered the Iran–Contra affair". Allegations of CIA drug trafficking predated Sheehan, and Sheehan had made some new claims before the Iran–Contra story broke. Once the Iran–Contra story broke, he tacked on some of the publicized names to the lawsuit and made it one gigantic conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theorists love these scandals because they can use the people involved in them to simply make up stuff (e.g. Watergate figures were involved in the assassination of JFK) and they have an audience that eats it up. In the case of the Christic Institute, they used their lawsuit as a publicity stunt and fund-raising tool. - Location (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

A Reagan Press Conference From May 1987 That Must Be Included In 'Aftermath'
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-05-16/news/mn-9385_1_iran-contra

Although the article as it is may be correct in its assertion that the specific level of Reagan's involvement is 'unknown,' the tone of this piece is overall obfuscatory given the press conference of May 1987 in which Reagan vociferously took credit for the general idea of the Affair, while insisting that all actions were legal under the Boland Amendment, etc. At the risk of violating NPOV principles, I think the article might mention that the President went on to cite positive poll numbers as justification for his personal involvement. Maurizio689 (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is a transcript of that press conference. One reporter asked if Reagan had been "mortally wounded" by the Iran–Contra affair; he replied that he had not seen any evidence that he had been. A second report asked how Reagan would respond to public opinion polls that had shown a drop in support for him and his policies over the preceding six months; he replied that he still had high favorability ratings and that poll results are dependent upon how questions were asked. In other words, Reagan was not justifying anything; he was refuting the premise of the questions.
 * Regardless, the Iran–Contra affair encompasses a many different aspects, so what specifically would he be presumed to be justifying via those quotes? Negotiating with Iran? Selling arms to Iran? Supporting the Contras? The diversion of funds? - Location (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Iran–Contra affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090130003027/http://www.jsonline.com:80/story/index.aspx?id=235102 to http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=235102
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110512030502/http://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_scandal/thelegalaftermath.php to http://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_scandal/thelegalaftermath.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Iran–Contra affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962858,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070617230049/https://meria.idc.ac.il:80/journal/2007/issue2/jv11no2a5.html to http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2007/issue2/jv11no2a5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

?moderate Iranians
the term "moderate iranians" is used throughout the article, starting at the beginning, but there is no citation which gives any real insight as to who these people were. without context "moderate" is a meaningless statement.192.12.69.203 (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well in this instance, "moderate" is attributed to those opposed to the Ayatollah Khomeni, who was more of the extremist when it came to advocating Islamic values. Happyme22 (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What other "moderate" political groups build up a private cache of weapons? --74.13.190.164 (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that the characterization of the arms sales being to "moderate" Iranians is solely sourced to Reagan's own account; it needs to be described as such, rather than presented as unvarnished fact. The Walsh report characterizes the sales as being "to Iran" (which after all is a totalitarian state under the control of the Ayatollah).  — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The arms sales were to the Islamic Republic of Iran, not "moderate" Iranians. The man whom the Americans were hoping to deal with was Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was and still is a major player in Iranian politics. I corrected that, and replaced the anonymous "moderate" faction with the Rafsanjani faction, which might help to clarify things. On a slightly different note, this article uses Reagan's memoirs as its main source. This is highly problematic given that Reagan was president at the time, and so whatever Reagan or more accurately Reagan's ghost-writer wrote is clearly going to be partial to the Gipper. Would Reagan's ghostwriter admit that Reagan broke the law and traded arms for hostages? Merely to ask the question is to answer it. I have no trouble with using Reagan's memoirs as a source, to get Reagan's take on things. But surely the article would be better if it used third party sources rather than Reagan's memoirs? It is rather like if one were to use Nixon's memoirs as the main source for the Watergate article or Clinton's memoirs as the main source for the Lewinsky affair. If one were to use Eden's memoirs as the main source for article on the Suez Crisis of 1956, then the article would say that there was no "collusion" between Israel, France and Britain to attack Egypt. What Eden wrote in his memoirs denying the "collusion" to attack Egypt was a complete and total lie. The Eden memoirs are worthless as history as Eden lies shamelessly about his plans to attack Egypt in 1956 and a great many other things, like being opposed to the appeasement of Germany during his first stint as Foreign Secretary in 1935-38, which he in fact supported. This is especially the case as others like Colonel North have insisted that Reagan did know everything about they were doing. The article notes North's claim, but takes Reagan's side on the basis of his memoirs, which is somewhat problematic. Furthermore at present this article demands of the reader a stunning suspension of belief. The article, using only Reagan's memoirs as a source claims Reagan was dealing with a nameless "moderate" Iranians faction (which is falsely implied not to be the government of Iran)  and did not trade arms for hostages. If the aim of sending arms to Iran, first via Israel and then directly was to free hostages held by Hezbollah as Reagan contends in his memoirs, then that is trading arms for hostages, regardless of how Reagan's ghost-writer might try to spin it as not trading arms for hostages. If these Iranian officials had nothing to do with terrorism, how was it that they had enough influence to order Hezbollah to free American hostages? Any Iranian official with the power to order Hezbollah to free hostages is definitely right up to their necks in terrorism. And if the faction led by Rafsanjani were powerful enough to order Hezbollah to free hostages and if they were "moderates" vehemently opposed to terrorism, then why was the Islamic Republic of Iran engaging in terrorism in the first place and letting Hezbollah kidnap Americans? That makes no sense. Indeed, if the Rafsanjani faction were really opposed to terrorism as morally wrong, then why was it necessary for the United States to ship arms to Iran to effect the release of the hostages? Surely, these people would do the morally right thing and have Hezbollah free the hostages without conditions such as arms shipments if they really felt that way? Any Iranian official who had nothing to do with terrorism would not had the power to free the hostages. Either Reagan was really stupid not to understand these very simple points or he was lying. Take your pick. --A.S. Brown (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

As an Example of post-truth Comment
In this diff I've added a sentence and new citation about post-truth to the WP:Lead. It will need to be discussed and added to the body of the entry too. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Some fundamental issues in the problematic representation of this article
While it is well-presented in its details, this article suffers from a noticeable equivocation between what are statements of fact concerning a definitive set of apparently illegal exchanges, and what are political talking points by those who would be (or were in fact) the defendants. Historically, the public position of those individuals implicated in this ordeal was overwhelmingly reliant on the claim of a "noble cause": that these transactions were primarily an agreement that was contemplated for the reason of obtaining the return of hostages. The actual transactions recorded, however, are that arms had been, in fact, sold and transferred to Iran, and that proceeds had been directed toward the arming of the Contras. No hostages were involved in any of the actual transactions. Again, the undisputed events to which this article refers are transactions concerning Contras and transactions concerning Iran: in both cases, exchanges (money for weapons) were successfully executed, none (repeat, NONE) of which involved any hostages.

If you were sitting in a court of law, concerning illegal, completed (key word: "completed") transactions, and you started off your brief by quoting the talking points of the defendants (as is done in this present article), and stating, as an assumed fact, that they did this because "they hoped thereby to secure the release of several US hostages," you would (a) clearly be the defense lawyer, and, (b) your defense would be standing on very tenuous ground. This is not even considering the settled fact that high-level, implicated persons illegally destroyed government documents of the transactions (should we also assume that these would have somehow exonerated them?).

In short, documented facts of the case should be the prominent features of the article; not the positions of personal memoirs and editorial articles, which should be secondary and qualified. Wikibearwithme (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you will need to be a tad more specific in what you think should be added, removed, or changed. While I haven't fact-checked every citation, it appears most of the material cited to Reagan's autobiography can be supported by other reliable secondary sources. No doubt that secondary sourcing would almost always be better given that Reagan was a major player in the scandal.
 * I am also not clear what your point is about the "noble cause" claim, particularly since you seem to lump the many participants together as entering the fray all at the same time, having the same knowledge of events, and having the same agenda or intentions. That's just not the case. Strangely, you seem to suggest that the ends justified the means... if all the hostages in Lebanon had been released, then all or some of the participants - hard to know which ones you are charging with what - may have been exonerated in this hypothetical court of law. Also, "NONE" is not accurate given the circumstances of the release of Father Jenco. - Location (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

(a) I believe, for obvious reasons, secondary sources are clearly called for under Wikipedia guidelines, particularly under these circumstances. If Reagan's autobiography is so reliably backed up by secondary sources, then it would seem incumbent upon the author of this piece to cite those secondary sources. At this juncture, the claim of needed secondary sources being out there somewhere is merely an unsupported claim. However, as a highly politicized episode, with many so-called secondary sources being essentially cheerleaders, none of this appears adequate, relative to the simple fact that only the Reagan-preferred side of the story is itierated throughout this article.

(b) I fail to see how the chronology of interactions that you refer to, or their individual motives, is of relevance to my citing what was uniformly the official and unofficial (in autobiography) "reason" for the business transactions in question. This "reason" (hostage release) is reiterated with great repetition, unquestioned in its credibility, throughout this article. As an alleged reason for the executed business transactions in question, I don't think that it is in dispute that the motive of obtaining hostage release was widely considered a "noble cause" and obviously a patriotic cause.

It is not clear how you arrived at your comments on what I "seem" to imply, in your second paragraph, without making a great deal of inferences for which I did not provide any support. I made no suggestion that any "exoneration" should have been forthcoming, in any event. And clearly, I did not suggest or intimate that this "noble cause" was in any way ample justification for the means in question. I think it is pretty clear that I utilized the term "noble cause" to explain the alibi of those implicated in these transactions and, so, attempting to defend their own actions - never suggested it was adequate - quite the contrary, in fact.

(c) Please explain and support (by secondary sources) how Lawrence Jenco could be considered one of the Iran-held hostages in question, who was released as a consideration in the business transactions in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibearwithme (talk • contribs) 23:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (a) Keep in mind that this is Wikipedia, so the "author of this piece" is currently 1,562 different users Feel free to look up in the article's edit history who placed the links to Reagan's book and tell them you think it is incumbent upon them to cite secondary sources. Alternatively, I have no objections to you adding secondary source material that conforms to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
 * (b) What I think you are saying is the same as what I though you were saying before, so there is no need for me to proffer a response and keep us going round in circles. Your best bet is to suggest a specific passage and a specific fix.
 * (c) The report of the congressional committees investigating the Iran–Contra affair states that Benjamin Weir and Father Jenco were both released due to the involvement of Ghorbanifar. The Tower Commission also gives substantial discussion to Jenco. I'm not sure how this is going to change the article, so again... your best best is to suggest a specific passage and a specific fix. - Location (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this passage and a following talk section and citation link might help this discussion:
 * Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored. Post-truth differs from traditional contesting and falsifying of truth by rendering it of "secondary" importance. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Iran–Contra affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416182515/http://www.businessweek.com/1997/25/b353254.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/1997/25/b353254.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Scandal
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205210002/http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1992/920606-231623.htm to https://fas.org/news/iran/1992/920606-231623.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421150512/http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1992/921224-260039.htm to https://fas.org/news/iran/1992/921224-260039.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130711135055/http://nytimes/ to http://www.nytimes/
 * Added tag to http://intelligence.senate.gov/pub101stcongress.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C962858%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051026005928/http://www.bartleby.com/65/ir/Irancont.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/ir/Irancont.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iran–Contra affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205125404/http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/03/busby_iran_contra/index.html to http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/03/busby_iran_contra/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Post-truth Politics is a Neologism
Removed reference to neologism "post-truth politics" as per MOS:NEO. This is a recently popularized term which tries to advance a POV narrative about how the subject matter should be interpreted. Mere mention of the term colors a reader's perception of the actors involved, adding nothing but subjective commentary from a modern perspective. This line is appropriate in the post-truth politics article as an example, but not here. Kphawkins (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you object to the term, you need to take that up at the talk page of that article; this isn't the place. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The term is not necessary to describe the Iran-Contra affair so it is inappropriate to use it, irregardless of whether a reputable source is trying to popularize the term. I have moved the line down to the aftermath section since the impact of the term is a modern interpretation of an alleged larger cultural phenomena. I think it should be removed but perhaps this is a suitable compromise? Kphawkins (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead should obviously specify that this is the Khomeini regime
Readers should not be forced to sift through the body to figure out that the weapons were sold to the Khomeini regime rather than the Pahlavi regime. It makes no sense at all to obscure which regime it was. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I told you on another page where you tried this: Anyone can look at the dates and figure that one. I don't think we ever had a embargo against the Shah in any case. If your intent here is to make clear that North was trading with a Islamic fundamentalist regime that supports terror.....the point is largely irrelevant because these were not terrorist weapons. I cannot think of a single instance where they were used in a terrorist attack. They were conventional weapons used in their war with Iraq.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyone can look at the dates and figure that one — I actually don't think that's good enough. What is the drawback in being more precise? El_C 19:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can understand Rja13ww33's comment, the only reason why the lead can't mention Khomeini is because he thinks it reflects badly on those involved in the Iran–Contra affair. In other words, the purpose is to hide this information. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No not really.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article makes clear who the trade was with. Why specifically note it was "Khomeini's regime" when there were middle men? Do we start off the Lend-lease act page with "Stalin's Russia"?Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean the Reagan Administration is mentioned, so why not Khomeini's government (we don't have to use "regime" necessarily). El_C 19:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So if we want precision.....why not call them by the nation's official name? (I.e. the Islamic Republic of Iran.) Iran's name during this time was NOT "Khomeni's regime". And in any case, linking to that would put us right back to "Iran" anyway.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead already clearly notes that this is Iran. No one has ever argued that the lead should remove "Iran". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think using Khomeini's government is somewhat more intuitive because we are mentioning the Reagan Administration in the same breath. But Iran's conventional long form (Islamic Republic of Iran) work, too, I suppose. El_C 19:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd vote for "Islamic Republic of Iran". (Considering all the middle men involved in the Iranian side of this.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Islamic Republic of Iran" would again require readers to figure out whether it's the Pahlavi regime or the Khomeini regime. There's no reason why the article can't state things plainly so that readers can actually understand the events in question. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are many readers who would conflate the Pahlavi regime with the Khomeini regime vis-à-vis the Islamic Republic! El_C 19:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think many readers would be (very few Americans can even place Iran on a map). You'd be requiring that readers know that the Islamic Republic of Iran was formed in the Iranian Revolution of 1979, and is not just a term for the state of Iran. Why are we making things unnecessarily cumbersome for readers? Rja13ww33 has already given his reason: he thinks that readers will think more poorly of the actors involved in the Iran–Contra affair if we clarify that it was the Khomeini regime. That's not a basis to hide this uncontested fact. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No that isn't my reason. Again: if we want precision....then let's get precise. If the readers of this project can't be bothered to click on a few more articles....what's the point? I guess we DO need to update the lend-lease act article (unless you haven't tried it yet) to say it's Stalin's USSR/Russia.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly is confusing readers about using the name Soviet Union in that article? Are there readers who are likely to confuse Stalin's USSR with a pro-US regime in the USSR? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you saying Stalin's USSR had the same relationship with the USA as (say) Gorbachev's USSR? You appear to want to spoon feed the readers.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No one will confuse WWII USSR with 1980s USSR. However, people will confuse whether the US gave weapons to the pro-US regime of Pahlavi or the fiercely anti-US regime of Khomeini – which were two regimes that followed in succession. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "No one will confuse WWII USSR with 1980s USSR." Are you sure? Same gov (technically). You think people would get the Shah's gov and the Islamic republic mixed up.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The name of Iran prior to the 1979 revolution was not the Islamic Republic of Iran. Give our readers some credit.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Middlemen notwithstanding, in terms of Iran, the responsibility rests with the supreme leadership, I would challenge. El_C 19:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we ought to pander to readers who cannot place Iran on the map. My compromise solution would be to refer to Khomeini's government in this article and to the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Oliver North article. A Judgment of Solomon, if you will. El_C 20:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The purpose is to inform people, not to find a middle-ground with right-wing editors who do not make policy arguments and explicitly say they don't: want this basic uncontested fact in the article because they don't want the readers to think poorly of the actors involved in Iran-Contra. It's akin to saying Trump did X and Y with the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" when we should obviously state that it's North Korea and Kim Jong-un, so that readers don't confuse it with South Korea. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are (again) misrepresenting my motives and making personal attacks. I don't care what anyone thinks of "the actors" involved in Iran-Contra.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your first comment in this thread said, "If your intent here is to make clear that North was trading with a Islamic fundamentalist regime that supports terror.....the point is largely irrelevant because these were not terrorist weapons. I cannot think of a single instance where they were used in a terrorist attack." What exactly is the point unless you think that readers will leave with the impression that the weapons boosted a "Islamic fundamentalist regime that supports terror"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * my point is a guess as to your motives. Dealing with you in the past, you haven't been particularly honest about them and you are pretty left-wing in your pov(s). So that kind of what I am forced to deal with. In any case, you know where I stand on this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I just don't think it's that key of a distinction, from the outset. Nor do I think you should label your opponents as -wing anything. But if you two find yourself at an impasse, you may consider launching a Request for comment or another dispute resolution request. Good luck. El_C 20:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We may have to go to a RFC.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is why editing in American politics is so dysfunctional. A RfC is now needed to state a basic uncontested fact? A basic uncontested that needs to be hidden because one editor wants to make it harder for readers to figure out this basic uncontested fact? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes editing tough here is editors grinding axes. The official name of Iran is not, nor has it ever been "Khomeini's regime"Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Can someone fix the archiving?
12 yr old discussions are on the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Khomeini government
Should the lead to this article say that the weapons were sold to the "Khomeini government of the Islamic Republic of Iran" rather than just to "Iran"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes. We should be as precise as we possibly can, and provide readers with as much information as we concisely can. Readers should not be put in a position where they have to sift through the article to figure out whether the weapons were sold to the pro-US government of Pahlavi (-1979) or its successor, the fiercely anti-US government of Khomeini (1979-). Given that the US provided extensive support of Pahlavi and given that the two governments succeeded each other, it is likely that many readers might leave with the erroneous impression that the weapons were sold to the Pahlavi regime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Yes This should not set a precedent, however, given the potential for reader confusion described by Snooganssnoogans, I believe specificity is the best course. BIG BURLEY 22:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes - not sure why this would even be controversial; it seems obvious that this is necessary to accurately situate and orient the reader. Neutralitytalk 23:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I don't think confusion is that big a factor, but still the intuitive choice. More of my reasoning is outlined in the section above. El_C 23:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No. I see no reason for it. We can clearly ID the regime by it's official name or by simply calling it Iran (as the article currently does). The notion that we need to call it that to differentiate the Shah's regime from the Islamic state that took over in 1979 is clearly preposterous (IMO). Selling the Shah weapons obviously would not have been a scandal. If the reader doesn't know that (or about the 1979 revolution).....calling it Khomeini's regime (alone) will not fix that problem. As a alternative, I would suggest Islamic Republic of IranRja13ww33 (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, although the exact wording could be tweaked. The fact that it was Khomeini is fairly central to the event's significance.  And I don't agree that it would necessarily be obvious to future readers - after all, part of the reason it was a scandal was because it was so unusual and unexpected.  It is obvious to us that selling the Shah weapons would not be a scandal, but not necessarily to all readers. --Aquillion (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes Something like this " Senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, after the Islamic Revolution when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini declared himself the Supreme Leader. At the time Iran was the subject of an arms embargo." Boston1775 (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Question Is there evidence that such confusion actually happened? Adoring nanny (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Maybe the same people who get the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany mixed up? Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes per excellent reasoning given by Snooganssnoogans Dartslilly (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes this was a particular revolutionary government, not just some random, short lived change of the guards. The Reza Shah's government was a completely different kettle of fish. Many readers new to the subject may not know these details. We are equally specific with the relevant government of Nicaragua "the left-wing Sandinista government in Nicaragua" - and rightfully so - many readers are ignorant to the details of these historic events and context is obviously required to understand them. Bacondrum (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Partial support - while the idea itself is fine, the current proposal is a long-winded overkill. We don't need both "Khomeini government" and "Islamic Republic", either one alone is completely sufficient to avoid any confusion with the Pahlavi government.--Staberinde (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Partial support - I agree with Staberinde that "Khomeini government of Iran" is better wording and that the proposed wording is slightly redundant, but that either is better than just "Iran". Loki (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Need congressional source cited for "as documented by a congressional investigation arms sales to Iran began in 1981 before any of the American hostages"
However, as documented by a congressional investigation[NEEDS CITATION: SOURCE AND PAGE NUMBER], the first Reagan-sponsored secret arms sales to Iran began in 1981 before any of the American hostages had been taken in Lebanon. This fact ruled out the "arms for hostages" explanation by which the Reagan administration sought to excuse its behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummyaaaa (talk • contribs) 14:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)